Things Kerry will do.

[wasteofo2]

Alot of people are saying that the Democrats unity and desire to get John Kerry elected isn't really pro-Kerry, but rather anti-Bush, and that he just happens to be the guy who isn't Bush. Even if this is true, and no one thinks John Kerry is great, I think it speaks volumes about Bush's presidency when you bassically have Bush vs. This stiff, stuffy, distant guy, and they're tied in most polls, with the "other guy" having slight leads in many.

So, bassically, if you're actually for Kerry, and not just against Bush, I'd like to see why. I don't want to see what Bush's done poorly, but how you think Kerry will do better, things that are specific to Kerry and his vision for America. I'm not looking for things like "People hate Kerry less than Bush in the world", but things like I'm going to list below

Some examples I can think of:
- He wants to actually keep the tax cuts Bush instated for 98% of Americans, but roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%.
- He wants to raise the minimum wage.
- He is for giving federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research (at least I believe he is).
- He hasn't let the church shape his political stances (so much so that some want him ex-communicated:rofl:)
- He wants to double the amount of special forces in our military.
- He was a war hero, made decisive decisions in battle and reportedly served outstandingly, and he would hopefully act just that way as the commander of our military.
- He will try to get NATO involved in helping the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan so that less American soldiers are needed to fight and die.

Also, if you are voting for Bush, and fear the prospect of a Kerry presidency, list specific reasons you think he'd do worse than Bush. I'm sure you get the point of what I'm looking for, and I'm sure Bush supporters could think of much better reasons that Kerry would suck than I could.

And of course, if the Bush supporters/Kerry detractors think that any of my reasons to vote for Kerry are wrong, off-base, misleading etc., please criticize them.

[Dissident Dan]

He also will work to better our environmental policy and reduce our dependence on oil. Given his extremely high environmental voting record (www.lcv.org), I find his promises to work toward these goals credible. He has also taken a position in favor of small farmers over corporate giants, which, if he follows through, would be a godsend.

[wasteofo2]

He also will work to better our environmental policy and reduce our dependence on oil. Given his extremely high environmental voting record (www.lcv.org), I find his promises to work toward these goals credible. He has also taken a position in favor of small farmers over corporate giants, which, if he follows through, would be a godsend.
Can't believe I forgot about the environment, alternate energy sources and fighting big corporations. Damn, I need to get back in touch with why I'm a liberal.

[russ_watters]

- He wants to actually keep the tax cuts Bush instated for 98% of Americans(:eek: a tax-cutting lefty), but roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%. Hook, line, sinker.

He wants to keep taxes the same for some people, but increase taxes ("rolling back a cut" is an increase) for others. So where are these cuts that you say he's going to make?

In any case, this is more of the neo-liberal 'rich people are evil' mantra. But wait, is it really new or just re-emerging? What did Marx say about it...?

[wasteofo2]

Hook, line, sinker.

He wants to keep taxes the same for some people, but increase taxes ("rolling back a cut" is an increase) for others. So where are these cuts that you say he's going to make?


Yeah, he wants to keep Bush's tax cuts/re-institute Bush's tax cuts/make them permanent etc for the lower 98% of Americans. I'm not sure if he would introduce more tax cuts for the 98% of American's in question though, I worded that poorly, thanks for pointing that out.


In any case, this is more of the neo-liberal 'rich people are evil' mantra. But wait, is it really new or just re-emerging? What did Marx say about it...?

Honestly, I'm very sick of every attempt by a Democrat to tax rich people being compared to communism. As I'm sure you know, before Bush's $1 trillion tax cut, the American people payed $1 trillion more in federal taxes under clinton, would you have called 192-2000 America's "Communist" phase? If you want to draw comparisons between Kerry and Marx, I'm sure that Democrats could draw many comparisons between Bush and Nitzche or Bush and Machiaveli, but I think that kind of mud-slinging is just unproductive and childish.

Wanting to tax the people who earn more money more than people who earn less money isn't saying that they are evil, I have no idea where you get that from. As many wealthy Democrats will point out, the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already VERY RICH, and don't need these tax cuts. Bill Clinton does not need a huge check in the mail just for being rich, while a poor family in a neighborhood near you might benefit greatly from that same money.

Also, we are fighting a war and trying to rebuild two countries. Guns, tanks, armor, soldiers pay etc. is expensive, who would you rather help pay for all of this, the family who's father works as a McDonald's cashier and a mother who works as a file clerk, or the family who's father works as a lawyer and mother works as a surgeon?

Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people who really don't need it anyway.

[kat]

While you're throwing this 2% wealthiest person number around, for my own benefit, could you please define what the actual income is of the 2% wealthiest?
What exactly is Kerry's plan to implement tax increases on the 2% wealthiest. How much and through what form of taxation?

[Njorl]

While you're throwing this 2% wealthiest person number around, for my own benefit, could you please define what the actual income is of the 2% wealthiest?
What exactly is Kerry's plan to implement tax increases on the 2% wealthiest. How much and through what form of taxation?

I believe Kerry wants to tax income over $200,000 per year at the 2000 rate rather than the rate instituted by the Bush tax cuts.

Kerry has two very good plans for medical insurance

1. A federal single-payer system covering any uninsured child.

2. Catastrophic reinsurance for medical insurance providers.

Njorl

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry has two very good plans for medical insurance

1. A federal single-payer system covering any uninsured child.

2. Catastrophic reinsurance for medical insurance providers.


For his sake, he needs to do a better job of rounding up support for his plan than Hillary.

[russ_watters]

Honestly, I'm very sick of every attempt by a Democrat to tax rich people being compared to communism. As I'm sure you know, before Bush's $1 trillion tax cut, the American people payed $1 trillion more in federal taxes under clinton, would you have called 192-2000 America's "Communist" phase? If you want to draw comparisons between Kerry and Marx, I'm sure that Democrats could draw many comparisons between Bush and Nitzche or Bush and Machiaveli, but I think that kind of mud-slinging is just unproductive and childish. You miss my point. It isn't the government's total tax income that is getting on my nerves, its targeting the rich to create an us-vs-them division. It very closely parallels the marxist bourgeois (the 2% who are rich) vs the proletariat (everyone else who is not - regardless of the fact that most of that group is still quite well off). Wanting to tax the people who earn more money more than people who earn less money isn't saying that they are evil, I have no idea where you get that from. The implication is made the the rich are not paying their way (the top 1%, btw, pay upwards of 90% of all income taxes). They are a drain on society, they get their wealth handed to them, they exploit everyone else. Yes, "evil" is an exaggeration, but the message sent is 'these people need to be stopped before they can hurt us any more.'As many wealthy Democrats will point out, the wealthiest 2% of Americans are already VERY RICH, and don't need these tax cuts. Whether you realize it or not, that is Marxism. You have arbitrarily decided that their income needs to be capped. Bill Clinton does not need a huge check in the mail just for being rich, while a poor family in a neighborhood near you might benefit greatly from that same money. Another common fallacy (not unquely liberal). I hate it when my friends get all excited in April when they find out what their refund is. Yes, it is literally a check in the mail - but it is a refund. It means its money you shouldn't have paid. Similarly, a tax cut is not "a check in the mail," its just less money you have to pay.

And is another fallacy there: the poor pay so little in taxes (most pay just about nothing, and that's before you count the handouts they get), that you can't give them a tax cut. "Tax cuts for the rich" is redundant! Of course tax cuts will primarily go to the rich: the rich are the ones paying the taxes! Also, we are fighting a war and trying to rebuild two countries. Guns, tanks, armor, soldiers pay etc. is expensive, who would you rather help pay for all of this, the family who's father works as a McDonald's cashier and a mother who works as a file clerk, or the family who's father works as a lawyer and mother works as a surgeon? The rich person already does pay for virtually all of that . Do the math: since the top 1% pays 90% of all taxes, that means that the averge person in the top 1% pays a thousand times more in taxes than the average of the rest of the population: 1/.1/.01 = 1000.Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people.....[quote] ??? You agreed in your first sentence that Kerry wants to raise taxes, not lower them. ...who really don't need it anyway Again, who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their money? That's not the way America is supposed to work. If a rich person gets a nice bonus check from his company, let him buy a yacht. Who are you to say, 'sorry, you don't need it, so you can't have it'?

Every now and then, someone hits a $100 million jackpot in the lottery, and the government takes roughly $35 million of it right off the bat. Now, few people would argue that an indivudal really "needs" $65 million. Should we just take all but say, $1 million because the person doesn't "need" it? Is that freedom? Is that America? I don't think so.

In fact, you have it precisely backwards: "need" works from the bottom up, not the top-down. The government gives people what they need to survive - the thriving is up to you. If they don't have food, the government provides it. If they can't pay for their kids to go to school, the government provides it. If they get in a car accident and have no insurance, the government pays their hospital bills. Heck, if you go $200k in debt and can't pay it off, the goverment lets you off the hook. But what the government does not do is stand in your way. Yes, the government takes more in taxes from the rich and yes, rightfully so - but it is wrong to take money from someone simply because you say they don't need it. That sound like jealousy - and greed.

Rich people get lambasted all the time for being greedy - do groups of 1000 poor people ever get together and thank that one rich person who bought them dinner every night this year?

This brings me to another common democratic misnomer: "trickle down economics." It used to be connected with a specific theory, but has morphed into a catch-all for 'rich people's money.' If rich people spend money, it'll eventually trickle down to "the rest of us." There are two problems with that: 1. its true. Democrats hate that fact, but it is a fact that want based spending, not need based spending is what drives the economy - and rich people do more of it. That's why the Christmas shopping season is so critical to the year's economic picture. Needs never change - people always have the same needs for food, clothing, housing, transportation (caveat - an expensive car or house is both a need and a want). When someone gets a little extra money they spend it - on a vacation, toys for Xmas, a bigger car, a bigger house. That's money back into the economy.

The second problem with that is it again is an attempt to create a division where none exists. It paints a picture where rich people spend money and eventually it might find its way to "the rest of us." Wrong. Rich people's money is not separate from everyone elses. If a rich person buys a Lincoln Navigator because they go a $75,000 bonus check, how long does it take for that money to "trickle down" to "everyone else?" Well, lets see - that Lincoln Navigator was built by "everyone else" - they see the benefit immediately.

Ugh - that brings me to another issue: do the "everyone else" see the benefit immediately? If Lincoln sells one more car, "everyone else" won't get a bonus. But then, if The Rich Guy and a thousand others like him don't buy that car, they'll be out of a job. If enough Rich Guys buy Lincoln Navigators, the plant will have to increase production and hire another shift - employing 5,000 more of "everyone else."

[russ_watters]

More on "tax cuts for the rich." Lets say the government today passed an across the board reduction of every tax rate by 10%. Seems fair, right? Wrong. In Liberalese, that means the richest 1% got 90% of the tax cut! That second stat is thrown around all the time (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but that is the correct ratio) - I've heard it at the convention a handful of times, and I haven't even been watching much. Do any liberals really understand the difference?

[Njorl]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl

[Dayle Record]

I read an article in Business Week, from which this information came.



This all helps to explain why wealth has taken on a much larger role in sustaining U.S. economic growth. But the growing importance of wealth widens the social and economic chasm between rich and poor. Ownership of assets is highly concentrated, far more than income. The top 1% of families, as measured by net worth, receive about 15% of income but own 30% of the nation's assets -- including stocks and bonds, homes, and closely held businesses. That's according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The top 10% of families, as measured by net wealth, own 65% of assets, and the top 50% own a stunning 95% of assets. That means the gains from rising wealth have effectively left out half the population.


The entire article is located at
http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/14_16/b3879051.htm


When I read this particular section, I realized that our security as a nation becomes unbalanced when basically a slave class is being created, whether by intent, or consequence.

The figure was this staggering 50% of wealthiest individuals owning 95% of our economy. That means that maybe 85% of Americans have 5% of our economy to share among themselves, but they put in the effort to run the big machine. Also that means that both parents must work, and one parent, more than one job. It means that a jump in the cost of medical care, takes already limited assets away in a highly stressed system. Then they are expected to offer up their best and brightest to perpetuate this system. Or they are encouraged to die as foot soldiers to support the security of this nation.

We came to this nation to escape involuntary servitude, and feudal systems, are we returning to that mode, when the numbers are so out of balance?

Safety in numbers? Not in these numbers. When water to grow food is diverted to water golf courses, and hydrate expensive houses, they say oh, "What no food, let them eat mangoes from Mexico, the labor is cheap down there."

There should be no sub-middle class. If we are the most wealthy nation in the world, why are we poor?

I want to see a return to proper human values, I am hoping that John Kerry, John Edwards, and the American People can deliver it to us.

We have to realize as a nation that survival of the fittest is a big, big picture. We have to be fit to survive as a species, and the value of the most greedy, the most compassionless, the most convenient, has to not just take a back seat, but has to be demolished as an acceptible societal means. This is one of the big reasons that human values have to be taught in school, from day one, not religion.

[russ_watters]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl I'll need to research this. I must be honest and admit that I was repeating an often cited number that I haven't researched myself (yeah, even I fall for it every now and then). Regardless, 30% for 1% is still 43 times the average of "everyone else." No, it isn't 1000 times, but its still an awful lot. Anyway, I'll look into this more and respond fully tonigh.

edit: math error.

[russ_watters]

However, I must respond to some fo these now: But the growing importance of wealth widens the social and economic chasm between rich and poor. Ownership of assets is highly concentrated, far more than income. The top 1% of families, as measured by net worth, receive about 15% of income but own 30% of the nation's assets -- including stocks and bonds, homes, and closely held businesses. That's according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The top 10% of families, as measured by net wealth, own 65% of assets, and the top 50% own a stunning 95% of assets. That means the gains from rising wealth have effectively left out half the population. The conclusion in the last sentence doesn't follow from the rest - the rest of the paragraph says nothing at all about "rising wealth." To say 50% have been "left out" of the gains from rising wealth, you have to show that that 50% has not gotten more wealthy. When I read this particular section, I realized that our security as a nation becomes unbalanced when basically a slave class is being created, whether by intent, or consequence. Again, "being created" implies that that bottom 50% is getting poorer. It isn't. There should be no sub-middle class. Since income classes are defined by population percentages (first fifth, second fifth, etc) there will always be a "sub-middle class" because we have defined it that way. What you are missing is that that "sub-middle class" is also getting richer. No, not as fast as the top 5%, but they are still getting richer. If we are the most wealthy nation in the world, why are we poor? What we define as "poor" in the US, people would kill or die for in much of the rest of the world. People risk death every day(Cubans) for the opportunity to live "poor" by American standards. In the US, "poor" means only one tv, 3 people using one bathroom, and a slightly leaky roof. For a high percentage of Chinese (I'm not sure how many - 20%? 50%?), "poor" means never having seen a tv, used a bathroom with plumbing, nor lived in a structure with a fixed roof.This is one of the big reasons that human values have to be taught in school, from day one, not religion. On that I'll agree.

[amp]

You will find that Njorl was probably being a bit generous with that 30% figure. It is likely with the tax shelters and loopholes the ultra wealthy pay less than 30%. A lot of very rich multinational corporations pay less than 10%.

Its a wonder that the so-called right that harps on Christian values would ignore the words of the one they call their Savior for he said "if you would be great (meaning receive the approval of God) then minister to your brother(sister) who is in need " Have a care for the orphaned, have compassion for the homeless, uplift the destitute those are the kinds of actions and behaviors that will result in a better America for everyone. It doesn't mean a wealthy person must give away all their worldly goods, just spread some of it around to relive the misery. Sure some of you will say - these afflicted people need to get off their behinds and work for what they can get. A lot do but its like being on a treadmill for them they expend a lot of effort and don't seem to get ahead. Still others are unable because of various complications in their lives and then others don't have the skills, the literacy, or the education to get or sustain employment. Kerry's wife, Thersa Hinz-Kerry gives away millions but she hasn't gone broke and she would more than likely receive the love back if trouble came her way.

I think Kerry will put the enviornment first, I think he will shrink the deficit and give us another surplus, I think he will manage to give us universal health care, I think he will reform our educational system thus giving all children a good chance to realize the promise of opportunity America offers. And I know he will pull in our (Bush)estranged allies to help us with the work we must accomplish in the middle-east (I'm including Iraq, Isreal, Palistine and Afganistan)

[Robert Zaleski]

He wants to raise the minimum wage.
What do you think the hourly minimum wage should be?

[amp]

at least ten per hour.

[JohnDubYa]

Why not $50/hour? This way everyone will be rich.

[loseyourname]

There's a living wage requirement in place in many parts of California where certain jobs created by companies on government contracts are required to pay at least $12/hr (I think that's the rate). It's nearly impossible to get these jobs. I don't even want to imagine how difficult it would be to find a job if every job paid that much. Haven't you people taken Econ 101? Why do you think illegal workers are never unemployed?

[JohnDubYa]

And who would want to start a new business?

I'm going to invest in self-checkout machines.

[wasteofo2]

First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz.

Secondly, I believe that the figure of the top 1% paying 90% of the federal taxes is off base, I've heard people like Sean Hannity saying that the top 10% pay 50% of the federal taxes, and I really doubt Hannity was low-balling it. I'd be more inclined to believe Njorl's stat.

Also, for reference, here's the current tax rate for different income brackets
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

You miss my point. It isn't the government's total tax income that is getting on my nerves, its targeting the rich to create an us-vs-them division. It very closely parallels the marxist bourgeois (the 2% who are rich) vs the proletariat (everyone else who is not - regardless of the fact that most of that group is still quite well off). The implication is made the the rich are not paying their way (the top 1%, btw, pay upwards of 90% of all income taxes). They are a drain on society, they get their wealth handed to them, they exploit everyone else. Yes, "evil" is an exaggeration, but the message sent is 'these people need to be stopped before they can hurt us any more.' Whether you realize it or not, that is Marxism. You have arbitrarily decided that their income needs to be capped. Another common fallacy (not unquely liberal). I hate it when my friends get all excited in April when they find out what their refund is. Yes, it is literally a check in the mail - but it is a refund. It means its money you shouldn't have paid. Similarly, a tax cut is not "a check in the mail," its just less money you have to pay.
I don't believe that the democrats are waging a class war in the way you seem to think, I think they just want to bring about a better sense of equity in this country, since currently we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had.

My belief that the tax rate should be increased for the rich isn't arbitrary, I believe they have the most money to give, would be hurt least from having more money taxed from them, and that the money collected from them could do alot of good for our country.


And is another fallacy there: the poor pay so little in taxes (most pay just about nothing, and that's before you count the handouts they get), that you can't give them a tax cut. "Tax cuts for the rich" is redundant! Of course tax cuts will primarily go to the rich: the rich are the ones paying the taxes! The rich person already does pay for virtually all of that . Do the math: since the top 1% pays 90% of all taxes, that means that the averge person in the top 1% pays a thousand times more in taxes than the average of the rest of the population: 1/.1/.01 = 1000.[QUOTE]Around the time Bush asked for $81 billion for Iraq, Kerry proposed that in order to pay for that $81 billion, that reformations to Bush's tax cut plan be made, and that $81 billion of the $1 trillion was not given back to the wealthiest of Americans (though they would still get quite a bit back), and that it be used to fund the Iraq reconstruction. All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut, instead of a trillion dollar tax cut, only lessening the amount of money given to the very wealthiest of people..... ??? You agreed in your first sentence that Kerry wants to raise taxes, not lower them. Again, who are you to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their money? That's not the way America is supposed to work. If a rich person gets a nice bonus check from his company, let him buy a yacht. Who are you to say, 'sorry, you don't need it, so you can't have it'?

If you look at that chart, the dirt poor pay 10%, the poor pay 15%, and the lower-middle class pay 25%. It may be almost nothing in terms of the amount of money the federal govt. collects, but if you're only earning $30,000 a year, paying 1/4 of that means alot to how you're able to live.

Yes, as people get richer they start paying a larger percent of the total federal income tax, but I'd be interested to see what percent money the top 1% of Americans actually make in a year, and what percent of the total money earned in America it is.

I agreed that Kerry wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%, and keep them the same on the other 98%.

In response to your "who are you to say..." question: I am an American citizen, and I support the idea of taxing the richest 2% of Americans more than they currently are being taxed. Kerry will do this, so I support him, if enough people support Kerry, he will be elected and instate that policy, which is how democratic republics work. Politicians have beliefs of what should be done, and if enough people think that the politicians have a good idea, the politicians get to implement that idea.


Every now and then, someone hits a $100 million jackpot in the lottery, and the government takes roughly $35 million of it right off the bat. Now, few people would argue that an indivudal really "needs" $65 million. Should we just take all but say, $1 million because the person doesn't "need" it? Is that freedom? Is that America? I don't think so.
I'm busy right now, but will submit replies later.


In fact, you have it precisely backwards: "need" works from the bottom up, not the top-down. The government gives people what they need to survive - the thriving is up to you. If they don't have food, the government provides it. If they can't pay for their kids to go to school, the government provides it. If they get in a car accident and have no insurance, the government pays their hospital bills. Heck, if you go $200k in debt and can't pay it off, the goverment lets you off the hook. But what the government does not do is stand in your way. Yes, the government takes more in taxes from the rich and yes, rightfully so - but it is wrong to take money from someone simply because you say they don't need it. That sound like jealousy - and greed.


Rich people get lambasted all the time for being greedy - do groups of 1000 poor people ever get together and thank that one rich person who bought them dinner every night this year?


This brings me to another common democratic misnomer: "trickle down economics." It used to be connected with a specific theory, but has morphed into a catch-all for 'rich people's money.' If rich people spend money, it'll eventually trickle down to "the rest of us." There are two problems with that: 1. its true. Democrats hate that fact, but it is a fact that want based spending, not need based spending is what drives the economy - and rich people do more of it. That's why the Christmas shopping season is so critical to the year's economic picture. Needs never change - people always have the same needs for food, clothing, housing, transportation (caveat - an expensive car or house is both a need and a want). When someone gets a little extra money they spend it - on a vacation, toys for Xmas, a bigger car, a bigger house. That's money back into the economy.


The second problem with that is it again is an attempt to create a division where none exists. It paints a picture where rich people spend money and eventually it might find its way to "the rest of us." Wrong. Rich people's money is not separate from everyone elses. If a rich person buys a Lincoln Navigator because they go a $75,000 bonus check, how long does it take for that money to "trickle down" to "everyone else?" Well, lets see - that Lincoln Navigator was built by "everyone else" - they see the benefit immediately.


Ugh - that brings me to another issue: do the "everyone else" see the benefit immediately? If Lincoln sells one more car, "everyone else" won't get a bonus. But then, if The Rich Guy and a thousand others like him don't buy that car, they'll be out of a job. If enough Rich Guys buy Lincoln Navigators, the plant will have to increase production and hire another shift - employing 5,000 more of "everyone else."

[Dayle Record]

The middle class, and the poor are getting poorer. When the price of oil rises sharply, the price of shipping food causes a rise in the price of food, and oil for heating, price of goods rise, due to shipping cost. When medical costs triple, and all other costs rise, but wages don't rise, and unemployment rises, and jobs go off shore, then the bottom drops out on people. I haven't even mentioned the fixed income people. They are really hurting.

[Robert Zaleski]

at least ten per hour.
Right now the minimum wage is $5.15. Kerry wants to raise it incrementally to $7.00 by 2007. I would assume most people with entry level jobs make that much now. Do we have any entry level employees out there that can provide us with numbers?

[Robert Zaleski]

Why not $50/hour? This way everyone will be rich.
Wouldn't the 'Food Nazis' love that. The cost of a Big Mac $350.00. Would you like fries with that?

[loseyourname]

I don't believe that the democrats are waging a class war in the way you seem to think, I think they just want to bring about a better sense of equity in this country, since currently we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had.

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.

[wasteofo2]

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.
I can tell you for one thing that the new jobs which were created under Bush has created pay on average around $9,000 less than the old jobs which were lost under Bush. Not necessarily Bush's fault, but you're having people loosing their jobs and the only opportunities open to them are lower paying jobs. I'll try to get some more meaningful data though.

[Evo]

See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful.Your numbers for income are a bit off. I don't have time to find the current numbers, but here is a ballpark figure for 2001, the numbers would be higher now.
------------------
"A recent nationwide survey by the Gallop poll and CNN/USA Today, found that, by income, the average middle class household earns around $40,000 total in income, the lowest bracket covers no earnings at all up to about $17,000-- the lower class definition by income is about $17,000 to $31,000. Middle class, by this survey is around $31,000 to $49,000, upper middle class from $49,000 to $76,000 and that top 20% bracket, over $76,000. Interestingly enough, this survey found that middle class households tend to be clustered right here in the middle west as well as the east and west coast. "

http://www.hiringnetwork.com/common/article88.html

Although I cannot believe that someone making only $76,000 per year would be considered upper middle class. I think Russ had some more realistic figures.

There is also this.

In 2001, taxpayers reporting adjusted gross income of $127,904 ranked among the nation's top 5 percent of earners, and $292,913 was necessary to break into the top 1 percent. A year earlier in 2000, the income threshold for the top 5 percent had been $128,336, and the threshold for the top 1 percent had been more than $20,000 higher, $313,469.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html

Of course that is "adjusted" gross income, no telling what the actual income was.

[loseyourname]

My numbers weren't off. I said "if."

[loseyourname]

Interestingly enough, this survey found that middle class households tend to be clustered right here in the middle west as well as the east and west coast.

Now what the heck does that mean? Clustered in the midwest, as well as the east and west coast? That spans the entire continent. How does that qualify as a cluster?

[Njorl]

Now what the heck does that mean? Clustered in the midwest, as well as the east and west coast? That spans the entire continent. How does that qualify as a cluster?

It leaves the South, and the West that is not the west coast. Still, it seems odd. Is there more wealth distinction in the South and non-coastal West?

I would be suspicious of class definitions based solely on income. A family of four living on 50k in New York is barely getting by. Put them in Oklahoma and they're doing okay.

Njorl

[amp]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ?

How about this, what if the average income per household(family) were $200,000 ? What do you think the Bell Curve would look like? Could the tax code be restructured so that such a redistribution could take occur? What would the poverty level be in such a case?

[Artman]

This question got me wondering what he would do. So I figured the man is currently a US Senator, so he should be trying to do those same things through his current office, right? So I read his bill summary.

Bill Summary and Status (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d108:FLD003:@1(sen+Kerry))

The positive impression I got from reading these was a vision of an idealist with respect for the military, an interest in helping small business, and low income families.

The negative impressions I got were that he was pretty ineffectual in getting his legislation through (many Bills stuck in committees), that he also has some Bills pending that made me think of special interests such as duty-free treatment for certain tuna (I tried to read this bill but could not access it), tax breaks for stock sales, Federal historical site creation and preservation money designated for his home state and a neighboring state.

Would he be a bad president? Probably not. Can he do all the things he has promised? No way.

[BobG]

The top 1% of income earners pay less than 30%, not 90%, of federal income taxes, as of 2000. Considering total federal tax burden, that goes down to about 20%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

Njorl

Are you sure you and Russ aren't mixing apples and oranges? I think you're talking about tax RATES. 30% of 150,000 is 45,000. 25% of 40,000 is 10,000. With a 5% difference in income tax rate, the TOTAL tax paid is over 4 times as much.

Add in the other taxes one pays - sales tax for every purchase, inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc., consider which class is most likely to be affected by them, and the wealthy are paying much more than 30% of the total taxes taken in.

Not that that is a bad thing. The people gaining the most from the nation's economy should be the ones financing the nation - they have the most to lose if it isn't financed. The ones paying the lowest tax rates (or no taxes at all) are still struggling to for the opportunity to be the people financing the nation. A worthwhile goal everyone's striving for, right? :rolleyes:

I know I considered it a pretty significant milestone when I started getting back less in refunds than I'd paid in taxes instead of getting refunds larger than what I'd paid in. I guess still owing yet more taxes come April 15 is an equally significant milestone, but, somehow, it's not quite as fun as the first milestone.

And don't raise the minimum wage. It's fun to pretend raising the minimum wage will increase the number of jobs that are capable of supporting families, but the real effect is to steal those first 'pay your dues' jobs from the young. As John said, increasing minimum wage just lowers the cost of going automated and eliminating the job altogether.

[kcballer21]

I know this thread has diverted somewhat from its original topic, but I just wanted to add a link that elaborates on Kerry's healthcare plan that some people have already mentioned:

Medical Class Warfare (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/071604.html)

Sounds good to me.

[selfAdjoint]

Here's the poop.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the top quintile bore 65% of the taxes. That's now lower with Bush's selective tax cuts.

[Njorl]

Are you sure you and Russ aren't mixing apples and oranges? I think you're talking about tax RATES. 30% of 150,000 is 45,000. 25% of 40,000 is 10,000. With a 5% difference in income tax rate, the TOTAL tax paid is over 4 times as much.

I'm sure. I am not talking about tax rates.


Add in the other taxes one pays - sales tax for every purchase, inheritance taxes, property taxes, etc., consider which class is most likely to be affected by them, and the wealthy are paying much more than 30% of the total taxes taken in.

No, they are not. Federal income tax is the most progressive tax there is. All other taxes are more regressive, and tend to increase the share of teh tax load paid by the less wealthy. The estate tax was the only tax that was more progressive than the federal income tax.


Not that that is a bad thing. The people gaining the most from the nation's economy should be the ones financing the nation - they have the most to lose if it isn't financed. The ones paying the lowest tax rates (or no taxes at all) are still struggling to for the opportunity to be the people financing the nation. A worthwhile goal everyone's striving for, right? :rolleyes:

I know I considered it a pretty significant milestone when I started getting back less in refunds than I'd paid in taxes instead of getting refunds larger than what I'd paid in. I guess still owing yet more taxes come April 15 is an equally significant milestone, but, somehow, it's not quite as fun as the first milestone.

And don't raise the minimum wage. It's fun to pretend raising the minimum wage will increase the number of jobs that are capable of supporting families, but the real effect is to steal those first 'pay your dues' jobs from the young. As John said, increasing minimum wage just lowers the cost of going automated and eliminating the job altogether.

No increase in the minimum wage has ever produced a statistically noticeable impact on minimum wage employment. Of course, no increase in teh minimum wage has ever been by very much either, so it isn't surprising. I think the proper level for a minimum wage, if such a thing exists, is that level at which jobs would start disapearing. I'm sure it is a good deal higher than the present level, but I have no idea where.

Njorl

[loseyourname]

No increase in the minimum wage has ever produced a statistically noticeable impact on minimum wage employment. Of course, no increase in teh minimum wage has ever been by very much either, so it isn't surprising. I think the proper level for a minimum wage, if such a thing exists, is that level at which jobs would start disapearing. I'm sure it is a good deal higher than the present level, but I have no idea where.

Njorl

That because increases have always been enacted to offset inflation, which is perfectly fair. That is all an increase should do. There is no mandate to enact a living wage. People who are supporting themselves should not be working minimum wage jobs. Heck, the first job I ever had paid $12/hr. It isn't that difficult to find decent money if you really look. Even when I have taken lower paying jobs, I was always promoted quickly and soon made decent money.

[BobG]

That because increases have always been enacted to offset inflation, which is perfectly fair. That is all an increase should do. There is no mandate to enact a living wage. People who are supporting themselves should not be working minimum wage jobs. Heck, the first job I ever had paid $12/hr. It isn't that difficult to find decent money if you really look. Even when I have taken lower paying jobs, I was always promoted quickly and soon made decent money.

$12 an hour?! My first job, I made 20 cents less than minimum wage (he didn't have enough employees to be affected by minimum wage under the laws at the time) In spite of the pay, you almost never had anyone quit. Heck, anyone would be lucky to work in a place like that for free just for the job reference - I know - the owner told us that all the time. :rolleyes:

It was a neighborhood ice cream parlor, usually with a college freshman or sophomore as the night manager and high school kids for the other jobs, such as waitress, soda jerk, dishwasher, etc. That was such a big part of our social life we couldn't quit. After work parties, group trips to Geauga Lake, group trips out to Wolf Ledges - just a great time!

And I did get promoted pretty quickly and soon was making 10 cents over minimum wage as the ice cream maker (The local newspaper recognized our store as having the best ice cream in Summit county the year I made it. :approve: )

[Njorl]

Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation since 1981. It would be about $7/hr now if it had.

Njorl

[Artman]

My wife and I ran a small video store for 14 years. How much would you like to pay a high school or college kid to watch tv, do their homework and occassionally wait on a customer?

Small business owners cannot afford to pay more than the current minimum wage level. Often minimum wage jobs are the first type of job a person will get. This person is not worth even minimum wage to that small business owner until they are trained. They come with such skills as believing that 10% discount is a $10.00 off (it doesn't matter how much the purchase is. Yeah this happened to us, so much for the school system.) We teach them how to count back change, close out the cash drawer, deal with people... We would take a shy, unsure teenager and train them into a person ready for the business world. Then they go off to college, come home and get a real job and realize how much they owe us for the experience.

I think Mr. Kerry ought to try owning a video store for a couple of years instead of Heinz Foods.

[Dissident Dan]

My wife and I ran a small video store for 14 years. How much would you like to pay a high school or college kid to watch tv, do their homework and occassionally wait on a customer?

.......

I think Mr. Kerry ought to try owning a video store for a couple of years instead of Heinz Foods.

Firstly, Kerry does not and never did own Heinz. Secondly, I worked a minimum wage job at McDonald's when I was 16 and they worked me constantly. Wages only make up a fraction of a business's expenses, and an increase of a $1-2 an hour won't make money-wise (or even not-so-money-wise) entrepreneurs go broke.

[BobG]

Firstly, Kerry does not and never did own Heinz. Secondly, I worked a minimum wage job at McDonald's when I was 16 and they worked me constantly. Wages only make up a fraction of a business's expenses, and an increase of a $1-2 an hour won't make money-wise (or even not-so-money-wise) entrepreneurs go broke.

It won't make McDonald's broke, but a lot of your small family owned businesses would be lucky not to go broke even with a lower minimum wage.

[Dissident Dan]

I'm not trying to be insulting, if paying employees a little more breaks the bank, it sounds like either you picked the wrong business in the wrong place or are not cut out for entrepreneurship.

Also, please note that minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, so current minimum wage levels are easier on business-owners than they were 5-15 years ago.

[loseyourname]

It depends on where you live. Here in California, the minimum wage is $6.75/hr. I believe the highest rate is $6.90/hr in the state of Washington.

[Andre]

It seems that the Democrats have also prioritized on environmental issues, which is excellent. However, spearhead of environmental issues at present is "Antropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) which is beyond bad. It's disasterous.

Warning, baloney propaganda inside - do not believe it. (http://democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=global%20warming)

Perhaps check the Earth files to find lots of arguments against AGW. Save the whales, the tigers, the oceans, the tropical rainforest, but please please please forget about global warming. It's a non issue, a hype. But it's likely to ruin words economy if Kyoto is really implemented. We cannot save whales, tigers, oceans and rain forests from a prospect of sheer poverty.

When will common sense return?

[Prometheus]

When will common sense return?

Please look in the mirror and pose that question again. Let us know what response you get.

By the way, what do you mean by "return"?

[Andre]

Yes I know I'm just sticking my neck out to be chopped off. It's only a warning. I won't live anyway to see the disastreous results.

[Andre]

How about:
Please look in the mirror and pose that question again.

Although very politely hidden, you are using the standard ad hominem fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) of the global warmers. Anywone who is "against" global warming is a selfish greedy pig who has no concern for others.

[BobG]

I'm not trying to be insulting, if paying employees a little more breaks the bank, it sounds like either you picked the wrong business in the wrong place or are not cut out for entrepreneurship.

Also, please note that minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, so current minimum wage levels are easier on business-owners than they were 5-15 years ago.

The problem is that almost none of your small family owned businesses can compete if the larger chains operate smartly.

It's hard to say consumers are disadvantaged by that. If the local outlet of the chain store can offer cheaper prices, reliable service, and hold on to key employees long enough to provide the same atmosphere your family businesses can, then the consumer's gaining quite a bit. (And that means the store has to pay more than minimum wage to at least the core of their service jobs).

The few family businesses that do succeed make it on customer loyalty built a long time ago. When the owners retire, the store closes and there's no new family businesses to replace them. New family businesses just can't hang in there long enough to build up a customer base, anymore.

It just leaves a little twinge of nostalgic sadness to see all of your cities turning into cookie cutter replicas of each other, each having the exact same stores and restaraunts.

[BobG]

That's YOUR experience. If someone has to support themselves and they don't have the skills and/or education to find a $12/hr job, where do you suggest they work? That's why businesses have gotten away with paying minimum wage for so long--because some people have no choice but to take those jobs, and sometimes work two or three of them at a time. Maybe there's lots of $12/hr jobs in California, but try finding those in Mississippi, rural Arizona, North Carolina, etc.

I've done that. In a town enduring a slow death as the rubber companies slowly moved out, everyone gets affected. Laid off from my construction job, a friend of mine hooked me up with a minimum wage security guard job. Later, I caught a lucky break when the night attendant at a gas station out on the interstate got shot in the head - I took his job.

While most of those minimum wage jobs are there for new young employees with no job experience in normal times, those guys get bumped out pretty quick when the real jobs disappear. And then having a few more of those minimum wage jobs at least provide some sort of short term safety net.

In my home town, I think those jobs probably wound up being more than just short term safety nets, though. I wouldn't know. Being young with a new family, it just made sense to move on somewhere where the future looked a little brighter.

[loseyourname]

That's YOUR experience. If someone has to support themselves and they don't have the skills and/or education to find a $12/hr job, where do you suggest they work?

Since when is a business owner obligated to pay an employee more than he's worth because he has to support himself without skills or education?

That's why businesses have gotten away with paying minimum wage for so long--because some people have no choice but to take those jobs, and sometimes work two or three of them at a time.

Guess what? Some of these people would have no job if it weren't for minimum wage jobs. The reason businesses have gotten away with paying minimum wage is because that is the market value for the work being performed.

Maybe there's lots of $12/hr jobs in California, but try finding those in Mississippi, rural Arizona, North Carolina, etc.

$12 in California is probably about equal to $6 in Mississippi.

[Artman]

If this is all these employees did for you, why did you keep them on? Sounds more like an error in judgment on your part rather than an argument against raising minimum wage.

There wasn't much for them to do, they usually did what was asked. the problem isn't the difficulty of the work, but the time. My wife and I could not work all of the hours ourself, so we hired high school kids to make up some of the hours.

The fact of the matter is that this job and thousands like it don't warrant a higher minimum wage. They don't earn enough for the employer to offset a higher wage. These jobs don't don't require many skills (although some are certainly helpful, such as basic math skills.) If you raise the wages for this type job you will knock thousands of high school kids out of work. Thus placing higher burdens on their parents to support them.

Either that or the higher cost will be passed on to the consumer, then the cost of living goes up.

Fact is, those kids made more money from our business than we did. We made sure they were paid, even if we were not. Business owners don't have a minimum wage to protect them. If there is no profit or a loss it is on them to absorb it.

I've read a list of Mr. Kerry's bills that he has brought to the Senate. Many of them deal with small businesses, I didn't see any in the list that would have benefitted mine. While he might want to help small business, he does not seem to understand it.

Firstly, Kerry does not and never did own Heinz. Secondly, I worked a minimum wage job at McDonald's when I was 16 and they worked me constantly. Wages only make up a fraction of a business's expenses, and an increase of a $1-2 an hour won't make money-wise (or even not-so-money-wise) entrepreneurs go broke.

Firstly, Yeah, his wife does, big difference. Secondly, you worked for a national chain with millions of dollars in advertising, bulk buying power, and many other benefits over a small business.

I agree that McDonalds does get every dime's worth of work out of their employees. For one thing, you are under consant supervision. If a mom and pop store provides constant supervision it means mom or pop is there. If mom or pop is there, there is no need for the employee to be there. We eventually had to put in a video survelliance system to watch that the employees weren't driving away customers by having friends hang around.

It won't make McDonald's broke, but a lot of your small family owned businesses would be lucky not to go broke even with a lower minimum wage.

Thanks BobG. I agree completely.

[loseyourname]

What if all they can get is a minimum wage job?

Again, that is not a public problem, and it is not the employer's problem. The employer's problem is staying in business and making a profit. If all they can get is a minimum wage job, then maybe they should go back to school.

Again, you're not following the logic in my post. Your original post had the tone that because you made $12 an hour at your first job, that everybody else should be able to, too. You make it sound like these jobs are abundant "as long as you look hard enough." That's not correct.

The jobs are out there. My girlfriend's brother got a job as a busboy at the local rib joint right after graduating from high school and pulls in at least $300 a week working less than 20 hours. All he does is pull dishes off of tables. He doesn't even have to talk to anyone. I said that if you look hard enough, you can find a better paying job. That is true. Jobs in food-service and commission-based sales, in particular, offer great opportunities for people with no education and little to no experience to make good money. I made $12/hr. moving office furniture around in a warehouse. I made $14/hr. as a Census Enumerator. I made $13/hr. as a performer at Disneyland. The one time I took a minimum wage job (as a stock-person at a retail store), I worked my *** off, got promoted, and within 6 months made $12/hr. as the stock manager. My girlfriend pulls in a couple hundred dollars a day as a server at a mexican restaurant - her first job with no experience.

Even if one had to work a minimum wage job, there are studio apartments available around here for about $500 a month. The minimum wage here is $6.75/hr, which after taxes comes to about $5/hr, most of which you get back at the end of the year. This comes to about $800 a month, leaving $300 for food and utilities and bus fare, which is certainly enough. If you live with roommates, it's even more affordable. I know you can find cheaper rents elsewhere, too. I had a friend in WV that had a one-bedroom place at $200 a month.

I agree--I don't think any employer should pay an employee more than they're worth. Since you made $12 an hour at you first job, I take it you've never had to work at McDonald's or some other crappy fast-food or retail job. I have. I earned $4.25 an hour (minimum wage back then). I know I worked harder there than I ever did at any other job, and I deserved more than $4.25 an hour. I saw the receipts at the end of the day--I knew this business was making plenty of money and could afford to pay me more. It's not about paying people more than what their skill or education level is--it's about ripping people off who work hard, all for the sake of your own profit.

Ripping people off? You don't sound very grateful that McDonald's gave you a job. Where does this attitude of entitlement come from? You people act like it's your birthright as an American to live a middle-class lifestyle. God forbid you actually have to work for something. An employee is not paid based on how hard he works. He is paid based on how much he is worth. Presumably had you quit and not been replaced, McDonald's would not have lost much more than $5 or so an hour. Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees. There are also overhead costs such as lease and food-service licensing and franchise fees.

I believe that's the rationale of sweatshop owners in the third world, too. Hey, they're lucky to get 12 cents an hour there, right? Make 'em work 80 hours a week too--since they're not educated or skilled, who cares?

And you know what? Many of those people did not even make 12 cents an hour before the sweatshop moved in. Don't forget these are the same people that provide extremely affordable products to poor customers in the US.

[Prometheus]

Anywone who is "against" global warming is a selfish greedy pig who has no concern for others.
Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by "against" global warming.

Although very politely hidden, you are using the standard ad hominem fallacy of the global warmers.

Wow. You were able to discover the ad hominem fallacy that I have so politely hidden in the text? Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no ad hominem, there is no fallacy, and there is nothing hidden, polite or otherwise.

You merely made a meaningless generalization, and I made the same meaningless generalization, changing the subject to make it about you instead of about your topic.

[JohnDubYa]

Uneducated adults working unskilled jobs should question why they have no education or skills. Why blame the employer?

[loseyourname]

Try telling that to someone who has to work 80 hours a week to survive.

Are they born having to fend for themselves?

Again, I'm assuming these are all CALIFORNIA wages. Like you said in a previous post "$12 in California equals $6 in Mississippi." Those numbers you throw out don't sound so great when you cut them in half, do they?

Are you having trouble understanding cost of living? A person that makes $6/hr in Mississippi (close to minimum wage) has as much spending power as a person that makes $12/hr in California.

Again, you should read posts more carefully before you respond to them. I never said I worked at McDonanld's.

You said you worked a crappy retail/fast food job and mentioned McDonald's. Excuse me. This makes a huge difference, doesn't it?

Are you saying I don't work? How do you know anything about me? Based on my posts, you're jumping to a big conclusion there, no? FYI, I've worked FULL-TIME since I was 16. I paid my own way through college and graduate school. Nobody ever handed me anything, and I never expected anyone to. And who exactly are you referring to when you say "you people"? I'm just curious to know other group you're lumping me in with, just in case you happen to be wrong again.

Calm down, Elizabeth. I didn't mean you personally. When I say "you people," I mean you and Dan, specifically, and more generally, all supporters of living wage laws and social welfare. By the way, I think it's a little ironic that you managed to pay your way through everything working minimum wage jobs and seem to be doing pretty well while at the same time arguing that minimum wage is not enough to get by on.

Since when did minimum wage jobs start paying for health insurance for their employees? Again, I wouldn't know about McDonalds, but I sure as hell never got any health benefits at the pit I worked at.

At pits like that, the only full-time employees are the management staff. They received health benefits.

So you think sweatshops are a GOOD idea? Well then, I have a GREAT idea--lets make 'em work 100 hours a week, and only pay them 6 cents an hour. That'll make stuff even MORE affordable for all the "poor people" in the United States who buy $100 Nike shoes and $50 T-shirts. Better yet, how about we pay them NOTHING? Brilliant!

Thanks for completely hijacking the thread and then even managing to change the subject of the hijack. By the way, what's a good example of a country with sweatshops? Thailand? If you're curious, 12 US cents is worth about 5 Thailand Bahts (their equivalent of the dollar), so if they really are making 12 cents an hour, that's only 15 cents less than our minimum wage.

[JohnDubYa]

Maybe rent in Mississippi costs half as much as it does in California, but does food? How about diapers? Clothes? Electricity? The cost of living is not based on rent alone--that is your error in logic.

Electricity:

Mississippi: 6.48 cents per kilowatt-hour.
California: 10.81 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Source: http://www.nol.org/home/NEO/statshtml/115.htm

Gasoline:

Mississippi: $1.80 per gallon.
California: $2.25 per gallon.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/gasprices/

Having lived in the Midwest and California, there is no comparison: California has a much higher cost of living. And while rent is not the only consideration, it is a huge one. A family in Mississippi will have roughly $300 more each month simply due to the lower rent.

[Dimitri Terryn]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ?


Most European countries are like that.
Belgian has always been in the UN top 5 on the list of countries with the highest quality of life, and has the best healthcare system in the world.

The tax rate is usually 40%-60%, depending on how much you make. If you make more money, you pay a higher percentage.
In return, we get unemployement fees when you're out of work, the governement pays pack about 95% of all medical expenses, and education is dirt cheap. It is even included in the constitution that lower and secondary education should be free. It's not, but it's so cheap that nobody complains anyway.
Higher education is heavily state-subsidized as well. On average, you pay about 500 euro's (about the 600 dollars these days) a year to go to university, and then there's an extensive grant system, free housing and such for those who need it.

Thank god that I live in a country with a strong Socialist party :approve:

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, and it's just as warm in Mississippi (or the Midwest) as it is in California...

Ever lived in Fresno? Bakersfield? Needles?

There is this myth that California is the land of 70-degree summers. Sure, in some parts of the state. From personal experience, Redding is bloody hot in the summer.



So $1.80 is half of $2.25? that is, afterall, the gist of the post you're defending. I guess I missed that day in math class.

Well, in terms of commuter time, 25 counties in California (nearly half of all state counties) ranked in the Top 250 nationwide, and nearly every one of these counties features very high costs of living. Not a single Mississippi county is listed. So maybe it isn't just about gas prices?

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T050.htm

[JohnDubYa]

Fair enough. But the cost of gasoline and commute time should factor into the cost of living, should it not?

I thought you went to bed?

[BobG]

Most European countries are like that.
Belgian has always been in the UN top 5 on the list of countries with the highest quality of life, and has the best healthcare system in the world.

The tax rate is usually 40%-60%, depending on how much you make. If you make more money, you pay a higher percentage.
In return, we get unemployement fees when you're out of work, the governement pays pack about 95% of all medical expenses, and education is dirt cheap. It is even included in the constitution that lower and secondary education should be free. It's not, but it's so cheap that nobody complains anyway.


I don't want to be lumped in with Hillary's push for universal health care, but I do have to admit opponents managed to pick the very worst health care system in Europe as their example of what happens with socialized medicine. Most European countries do have better health care than the US (at least in terms of access - patient to doctor ratios). And, obviously, they do have much higher taxes.

I'm not sure how big of a tax increase I'd accept for universal health care, but the debate ought to at least focus on realistic costs/benefits vs. trotting out England's health care system as the model example of socialized medicine.

[Artman]

Since when did minimum wage jobs start paying for health insurance for their employees? Again, I wouldn't know about McDonalds, but I sure as hell never got any health benefits at the pit I worked at.


It's called worker's compensation. It is a form of mandated insurance that is paid for every employee.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that it's more important for high school kids to have jobs than it is for self-supporting adults to have jobs?

Not at all. We employed adults occassionally. One of the adults was paid about $3.00 over minimum an hour to do the scheduling and manage the employees. This job was worth more to us, so we paid more for her to do it. Sometimes an adult would ask for a job, we would hire them with the understanding that the job did not pay much but was not terribly demanding. All of our employees had the oppurtunity to increase their earnings by collecting late charges, we paid a commission on these.

So you were paying these kids minimum wage and they had a better income than you did? Did you ever consider maybe getting into a different line of work? If what you say is is true, I don't think your business would have been profitable no matter what.

We owned 7000 video tapes. What line of work would you like us to try? Technology changes were our main problem, not our management style. We were well liked in the community; cable TV was just more convenient. Closing a business is a lot more involved than just closing your doors and walking away. We ran the business at a loss for several years. Some people actually think of the customers and the employees (even though it was just minimum wage, at least it was a job.) and not just the bottom line. Our competition was a big corporate chain that didn't care if your child was sick and you couldn't get your movie back on time, or that you were just five minutes late bringing it back, they didn't care what type of movie you personally would enjoy.

[russ_watters]

Thanks for completely hijacking the thread and then even managing to change the subject of the hijack. By the way, what's a good example of a country with sweatshops? Thailand? If you're curious, 12 US cents is worth about 5 Thailand Bahts (their equivalent of the dollar), so if they really are making 12 cents an hour, that's only 15 cents less than our minimum wage.Whoa now - I was with you until there. That's not how exchange rates work. If it were, you could buy a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke in Japan for 5 yen. Have a look at the current exchange rate...

I spent a weekend in Lithuania a couple of years ago. Their currency is arbitrarily tied to the US dollar - 4 of theirs equals one of ours. Doing the math, a pair of Nike's that cost $125 in the US still costs you $125US there.

Money systems have evolved separately and have separate bases. Even when based on gold, you wouldn't ever have people agreeing that $300, 300 British Pounds, 300 yen and 300 French Franks would buy you an ounce of gold.

If the US government suddenly printed 10x as much money as we have today, you'd see almost instantaneous 1000% inflation as the markets adusted to this new, arbitrary baseline.

[Artman]

I am aware of what worker's compensation is.

Worker's compensation is not the same thing as "health insurance." Health insurance implies having coverage when you go to the hospital, go to the doctor or need a prescription filled. You know, where you pay a deductible and the office visit is covered. (And I'm not saying that employers should be mandated to pay for this for minimum-wage employees--that's a whole other subject). In a previous post someone had said that all full-time employees making minimum wage at places like McDonald's have health insurance. I was pointing out to her that that is not true.

Her exact quote was:

...Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees.

This statement as listed above could include worker's compensation (catestropic coverage), social security (as a form of life insurance) medicare, liability, theft insurance also benefit the employee. Some minimum wage jobs carry additional coverage for certain tasks such as driving or working in hazardous environments. Additional health benefits, as you pointed out, would not be mandetory for part time workers.

[russ_watters]

The middle class, and the poor are getting poorer. When the price of oil rises sharply, the price of shipping food causes a rise in the price of food, and oil for heating, price of goods rise, due to shipping cost. When medical costs triple, and all other costs rise, but wages don't rise, and unemployment rises, and jobs go off shore, then the bottom drops out on people. I haven't even mentioned the fixed income people. They are really hurting. That's inflation. Historical income numbers are adjusted for inflation. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html

[russ_watters]

First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz.

Secondly, I believe that the figure of the top 1% paying 90% of the federal taxes is off base, I've heard people like Sean Hannity saying that the top 10% pay 50% of the federal taxes, and I really doubt Hannity was low-balling it. I'd be more inclined to believe Njorl's stat. Quite frankly, I haven't researched this like I said I would - busy weekend. I'll just plain concede. Njorl's numbers looked credible. That said, 30% for 1% is still quite a lot.In response to your "who are you to say..." question: I am an American citizen, and I support the idea of taxing the richest 2% of Americans more than they currently are being taxed. Kerry will do this, so I support him, if enough people support Kerry, he will be elected and instate that policy, which is how democratic republics work. Yes, that's how the democratic process is supposed to work, but is that specific opinion how the United States is supposed to work? The US is the first country founded on individual rights and the idea that the majority shouldn't have the power to take away the rights of a selected minority. The founding fathers called that a "tyranny of the majority." All Kerry wants is a multi-billion dollar tax cut... ...a tax cut already implimented. I will continue to object to the framing of it that way. Supporting something that has already done is not the same as doing it yourself. If you look at that chart, the dirt poor pay 10%, the poor pay 15%, and the lower-middle class pay 25%. It may be almost nothing in terms of the amount of money the federal govt. collects, but if you're only earning $30,000 a year, paying 1/4 of that means alot to how you're able to live. That's the marginal rate - the rate you pay on your last dollar of taxes, not the rate you pay on every dollar of taxes. And this has nothing to do with deductions (a single person with a $30,000 income is only taxed on at most $25,000) - even after you take out deductions and consider only the adjusted gross income, thats still not the actual average rate (except if you're in the bottom category).

What that table says is your first $7,000 gets taxed at 10%, your next $21,000 at 15%, and your next $40,000 at 25%. For someone on the low end of the 3rd bracked - say with a $35,000 adjusted gross, that's...

10% of $7,000 or $700
15% of $21,000 or $3,150
25% of $7,000 or $1,750

...for a total of $5,600 or 16%.First off Russ, thank you very much for keeping this pretty civil, mad props to you cuz. I have no problem with arguing in a civil manner as long as the respect is mutual: mad props to you too.

[loseyourname]

No, I think you are. Maybe rent in Mississippi costs half as much as it does in California, but does food? How about diapers? Clothes? Electricity? The cost of living is not based on rent alone--that is your error in logic. You have a whole paragraph about how you and your suburban friends make $13 and hour (or whatever) for bussing tables. Just because it's been easy for you and your friends to find nice jobs at the mall, doesn't mean it's that easy for everyone.

Elizabeth, where the heck do you live? I've lived in both rural North Carolina and just outside of Los Angeles. I can assure you that $6 in NC goes about as far as $12 here. Obviously the exchange isn't exact - I never said it was. The point is that the cost of living is a lot higher here; and even higher in NYC, where I've also lived. You just seem to be ranting with no real intent. What is the point you're even trying to make?

No it doesn't. I implied that McDonald's qualifies as one of those types of jobs. I never said I worked at McDonald's--you just assumed that.

Elizabeth, does this matter? I'm very sorry that I misinterpreted where you worked. How does this change any of our arguments?

Where did I say that I worked my way through college on minimum wage jobs? Again, you have misquoted me. I said I worked at a one minimum wage job--I didn't work there when I was in college. Again, please read posts more carefully before you quote someone in error.


Fair enough, but this still goes toward proving my point. There is no good reason why someone should be working a minimum wage job for that long. The point is that you were able to work your way through despite not yet having an education. You weren't nefariously stopped in your tracks by evil Republicanly low minimum wage laws.

Just to see if we can this on some semblance of a productive track, what exactly do you think we'd accomplish by raising the minimum wage? What would be the advantage to the country?

[loseyourname]

By the way, I don't work right now. I get plenty of money from financial aid. I said my girlfriend and her brother make good money in food service jobs. They also make minimum wage - the money they take in is tip money.

[russ_watters]

Right now the minimum wage is $5.15. Kerry wants to raise it incrementally to $7.00 by 2007. I would assume most people with entry level jobs make that much now. Do we have any entry level employees out there that can provide us with numbers? Problem: what is "entry level?" I was an entry level engineer in my current job - I started at $44k...

By the same token, a buddy of mine worked in a marketing company (he has a degree) and entry level there was $19k.

In any case, $7 by 2007 is reasonable.See, now how exactly is this gap measured? If the average middle class person makes $30K a year, and the average upper class person makes $100K a year, and their respective salaries increase over 20 years to $60K and $160K, the numerical gap has widened, even though the middle class salary went up 100% and the upper class salary only 60%. It would take a little more detail to make the statement "we have one of (if not the) hugest gap between the wealthy and the poor that this country has ever had" meaningful. Actually, even percentagewise the rich are getting richer faster and the US does have one of the worst ratios of any country. But by the same token, the US also has among the "richest" poor people. The knife cuts both ways. Although I cannot believe that someone making only $76,000 per year would be considered upper middle class. I think Russ had some more realistic figures. Income stats are tough (mine were from the census bureau): I'm both an individual and a household. I would certainly say an individual making $76k is upper-middle class. But not a "household" (by my definition, a faimly of 3 or more).

I'm also not sure about gross vs adjusted gross: THIS (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html) table doesn't say, but the lower limit for the top 5% in 2002 was $150k.

[amp]

Russ:
...But by the same token, the US also has among the "richest" poor people. The knife cuts both ways.

Really, compared to who the rest of the world? There is a shred of truth in what you say but in the cut is the siphoning off of these 'riches' to further line the pockets of those who least need it.

[russ_watters]

Whats the name of that country over in Europe where most of everyones income goes to taxs but the Gov't provides universal healthcare, complete unemployeement insurance, free training to the unemployeed (I think), and a host of other services, is it Sweden or Switzerland ? Most European countries have both significantly higher tax rates and significantly more services. How about this, what if the average income per household(family) were $200,000 ? What do you think the Bell Curve would look like? by Bell Curve, you mean IQ? It would help a lot. Could the tax code be restructured so that such a redistribution could take occur? Not unless we somehow manufacture more money. The average is the sum total of all incomes divided by the number of families. Redistributing wealth does not change the average. What would the poverty level be in such a case? Depends on how one chooses to define "poverty." Using income brackets, the poverty level is perpetually 20% by definition. It is interesting to see how the average or the limits of each income bracket has changed historically: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html . In 2002, for example, the upper limit of the bottom 5th was $17,900 while in 1967 it was $13,700 (inflation adjusted - 2nd table). Someone right on that line in 2002 was 23% "richer" than someone on that line in 1967.

The Census Bureau actually uses a complicated formula for poverty, though it is based largely on income vs need (ie, poverty level is different if you have 1 child than if you have 2). HERE (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html) is some info.

[russ_watters]

Really, compared to who the rest of the world? There is a shred of truth in what you say but in the cut is the siphoning off of these 'riches' to further line the pockets of those who least need it. I'll need to look for the data so I don't put my foot in my mouth again, but AFAIK, the US compares favorably to western Europe (though not near the best because of socialism), and is far above the rest of the world.

Again, the knife cuts both ways - mild socialism causes an artificially low poverty line while at the same time causing high unemployment. Take it further and you can decrease unemployment to near zero, at the cost of dropping a large portion of your country into poverty (USSR).

[russ_watters]

Here's the poop.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-3.htm

In 1995 the top quintile bore 65% of the taxes. That's now lower with Bush's selective tax cuts..... higher than its 25 year low of 57%. That because increases have always been enacted to offset inflation, which is perfectly fair. That is all an increase should do. There is no mandate to enact a living wage. People who are supporting themselves should not be working minimum wage jobs. Heck, the first job I ever had paid $12/hr. It isn't that difficult to find decent money if you really look. Even when I have taken lower paying jobs, I was always promoted quickly and soon made decent money. In high school I was a temp making between $8 and $13. [in most parts of the country] There is no excuse for someone to be trying to support themselves or their family on minimum wage. Sorry, I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that it's more important for high school kids to have jobs than it is for self-supporting adults to have jobs? No high school kid I know goes hungry because they don't have a part-time job. In fact, most of them have jobs so they can buy clothes and CDs (I didn't say ALL, I said most). Wouldn't it be more useful for society to raise the wage a little and give adult wage-earners a chance to support themselves and their kids? And at the same time, you're getting employees who are dependent on their jobs, and maybe a more hard-working and reliable. I really think you're looking at it backwards - Kids take low skill, low pay jobs because they are low skill, low pay jobs: kids can't do anything else and aren't worth anything else. If you suddenly doubled the pay, would the real value of the job be any higher? Adults should work higher pay, higher skill jobs because adults should have the skills to be worth he extra money. You don't somehow become worth more just because you need more money to live on. Freedom means you have to earn what you get.You make it sound like these jobs are abundant "as long as you look hard enough." That's not correct. No - jobs are abundant (and well paying) as long as you work hard enough (and smart enough). I agree--I don't think any employer should pay an employee more than they're worth. Then why did you say McDonalds should pay more for adults to do the same job as kids? What makes those adults worth more money? It sounds like you are combining "need" with "worth." I take it you've never had to work at McDonald's or some other crappy fast-food or retail job. I have. I earned $4.25 an hour (minimum wage back then). I know I worked harder there than I ever did at any other job, and I deserved more than $4.25 an hour. Just because some jobs take effort doesn't make them worth more more than another job. Anyone (and I mean anyone) can do that job. It requires no skill or knowledge (and not even much in the way of an IQ). That's the whole reason its so well suited for kid. Not everyone can be a doctor. It takes skill and knowledge. Ripping people off? You don't sound very grateful that McDonald's gave you a job. Where does this attitude of entitlement come from? You people act like it's your birthright as an American to live a middle-class lifestyle. God forbid you actually have to work for something. An employee is not paid based on how hard he works. He is paid based on how much he is worth. Presumably had you quit and not been replaced, McDonald's would not have lost much more than $5 or so an hour. Don't forget that they also pay insurance for you guys, not to mention health benefits for full-time employees. There are also overhead costs such as lease and food-service licensing and franchise fees. Its the new American (Democratic) Way, loseyourname and it sickens me - and is harming our country.

[Evo]

Income stats are tough (mine were from the census bureau): I'm both an individual and a household. I would certainly say an individual making $76k is upper-middle class. But not a "household" (by my definition, a faimly of 3 or more).I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle.

[loseyourname]

Jeez, Elizabeth. Would you relax? No one here seems to getting angry about people having dissenting opinions other than you. I'm also not a female. Since you're so keen on very carefully reading and never misinterpreting another's posts, I've mentioned about 73 times now that I have a girlfriend.

[loseyourname]

Actually, I think I look a lot like Scarlett Johansson. Now that's funny.

[Artman]

Ask anyone who works a fast food job how much they make. If the minimum wage is $5.15/hr in their state, I guarantee you they're not starting at $7.00/hr. I used to make minimum wage (many years ago, thank goodness) and I went hungry trying to live on that amount. It just doesn't seem right to me that someone working full time (no matter what they do) should still be going hungry--not in this country. Yes, raising the minimum wage may hurt some small businesses, but it is not going to put McDonald's or Burger King out of business. Raising the price of a Big Mac by 10 cents isn't going to hurt anyone. Is $7.00 an hour really too much to ask?

I looked back to try and find your initial response to the overall question. I did not find one.

I believe this was your first response. I can agree with the idea of your entire post. The problem is, how do you limit the increase to those who can afford it, such as the burger giants?

Seriously, I still would like to read your response to the overall question of this thread: What do you believe that Kerry will do? If I missed it, please direct me to it (it's a little hard to find using a dialup modem. Mr. Kerry has a bill pending to install infrastructure for high speed internet in low income housing, unfortunately I am not quite low enough income to be in that demographic, so I can't afford high speed internet. Sorry, couldn't resist the dig at Mr Kerry. :smile: )

[loseyourname]

You know what sickens me? Elitist snobs who don't have the tiniest bit of compassion for other "imperfect" human beings.

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect.

[russ_watters]

Okay, now this is funny. Russ is an elitist snob that expects all humans to be perfect. Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine. :rolleyes:

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405. Do you know who fixed them? Me. Not the government, not my parents (they wanted to, but I wouldn't let them), not even a compassionate friend. Me. That's called personal responsibility and its important to me. I'd rather fail trying than have success handed to me on a platter.I'm also an individual and a household, but according to the thresholds, I am lower "upper class", I sure don't feel like it. Of course I am in my forties, so I have been around longer than a lot of you, but after bills and taxes, I don't have much left to spend, and I do not have an extravagant lifestyle. I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

[Evo]

I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed. :smile:

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so.

[russ_watters]

Russ, I hold you in very high regard. I have no doubts about your abilities to succeed. :smile:

P.S. Russ an elitist snob?? That was about him? Since when? I don't think so. Thanks. "Elitist snob" is a pretty common reaction to conservative ideas though. It doesn't bother me (thought the death of personal responsibility scares the hell out of me).

[Elizabeth1405]

Well yeah, everyone should have a mansion like mine. :rolleyes:

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread. I never mentioned your financial situation, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you own a mansion.

And for the record, I've made some mistakes that would make you cry, Elizabeth1405.

Somehow, in the scheme of things, I really doubt that your "mistakes" would upset me that much.

That's called personal responsibility and its important to me.
It's very important to me, too. It's important to a lot of people who aren't Republicans, believe it or not.


I'm 28, so my standards are lower, but I have expectations: I expect to buy my first house before I'm 30.

I bought my first house when I was 27 (and single). I just sold last month for a huge profit. Does that make me more "personally responsible" than you? No, of course it doesn't. My situation is different than yours, just like the guy working the $6.00 an hour job is different than yours. I don't believe in hand-outs either--God knows I never got a free ride. There are people out there, however, who aren't as intelligent, or have physical or mental limitations. Are they somehow worth less as people because they didn't own a house when they were 30, or because they're adults and have a minimum wage job? Hey, if they don't want to work, then I don't have much sympathy for them either. I have problems with the welfare system in this country, too. But there are lots of people who aren't quite smart enough to succeed in college and become doctors or lawyers. They have jobs, and they work just as hard as you and I do. They don't deserve to be screwed over. Be thankful that you've been gifted with enough intelligence and enough drive to make a comfortable life for yourself, and stop ripping on everyone else who isn't quite that fortunate.

[Artman]

"Elitist" refers to your ATTITUDE, and the attitude of of several other people in this thread.


I don't think you know Russ or others on this thread very well. You should refrain from name-calling it does nothing to further your point of view, which I am still waiting to read.

What do you think Mr. Kerry will do as President? You appear to be a Kerry supporter, what are your expectatons?

[amp]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

[JD]

1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both! :cry:

[Artman]

Said with conviction or with sarcasm. Or both! :cry:

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

[JD]

Exactly my concern. It's ambitious, it would be wonderful, but I fear these goals will not all be obtainable.

We can effectively ignore everything that is said before election so, once they are elected, we won't be as dissappointed as we would have been had we compared their promises list with what they are doing now.
The thing is, whether the gaping chasm is pointed out to them or not, a way will be found to make us feel good about such things as hospital closures, high inflation and so on.

It would be naive to think that any system can provide everyone with everything they need. But we could have a worse system than we have.

[amp]

Actually, said with optimism.

[JD]

A slightly worrying basis for a country's political system.

[Evo]

I am not "name-calling" by calling someone elitist. If you want to take on the subject of name-calling, perhaps you (and the moderators of this forum) should deal with the individual who called someone a "dickhead" in another thread yeasterday. Ooops, I forgot, that person is right-wing just like you, so they can say whatever they want and get away with it.Personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. I looked yesterday when you mentioned this and could not find the post, the poster may have thought better of it and edited it out.

You may report a post if you feel it is inappropriate and a mentor will take action if necessary.

I know it is hard to remain calm when discussing certain issues, but again I ask that everyone stop and rethink your posts before you hit "submit". Remember, people may be more willing to listen your your views if you present them with a bit less hostility.

[russ_watters]

It's very important to me, too. It's important to a lot of people who aren't Republicans, believe it or not.

....I don't believe in hand-outs either--God knows I never got a free ride. Could you explain this in light of your assertion that McDonald's should pay adults more money for doing the same job as kids? It appears contradictory. There are people out there, however, who aren't as intelligent, or have physical or mental limitations. Are they somehow worth less as people because they didn't own a house when they were 30, or because they're adults and have a minimum wage job? [quote] If by "worth less" you mean is the job they do worth less than the job a doctor (for example) does, then absolutely. [quote] But there are lots of people who aren't quite smart enough to succeed in college and become doctors or lawyers. They have jobs, and they work just as hard as you and I do. They don't deserve to be screwed over. So these people deserve handouts? I thought you said you don't believe in handouts? Be thankful that you've been gifted with enough intelligence and enough drive to make a comfortable life for yourself, and stop ripping on everyone else who isn't quite that fortunate. How is expecting people to do work worthy of their pay "ripping on" people? Are you saying that those who aren't intelligent or driven enough to "make a comfortable life" should get handouts?

[Elizabeth1405]

Personal attacks and name calling are not allowed. I looked yesterday when you mentioned this and could not find the post, the poster may have thought better of it and edited it out.

You may report a post if you feel it is inappropriate and a mentor will take action if necessary.



You may want to double-check on that. I just did, and the post is still there. It is the third from the last post on on "Why Bush Should Not be Re-Elected." (submitted by loseyourname).

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Artman]

I am not "name-calling" by calling someone elitist.

Sorry, I disagree. It's a deroggatory label.

If you want to take on the subject of name-calling, perhaps you (and the moderators of this forum) should deal with the individual who called someone a "dickhead" in another thread yeasterday.

And did it further their argument, or just make them look immature?

Ooops, I forgot, that person is right-wing just like you, so they can say whatever they want and get away with it.

I don't align myself politically with either side, but I guess I do tend toward the right in some things.

I am not required to respond to you about my beliefs.

Of course you're not. I asked you to do so, I am interested in your opinion (believe it or not).

Why? For one, you cannot tell me what to do. Second, no matter what I say it will be ripped to shreds (with arguments supported by skewed sources and biased websites), I will be misquoted, and nothing will come of it. Why should I bother wasting my time arguing for nothing? Thanks, but I've got better things to do. Come November, I will be voting for John Kerry, and you will be voting for Cowboy George. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. End of story.

If you had read my previous posts in this thread, you would see that I am trying to approach this question with an open mind. I do not vote based on a party leaning or slanted bias. I never have. If I feel Mr Kerry would be a better President then Mr Bush, he would get my vote.

What I am asking is for strongly based opinions and backup that can convince me that Mr. Kerry can do at least some of what he has promised. I am serious in this. I have given a website that lists Mr Kerry's Bills proposed to the Senate many of which I agree with in principle, but most of which are caught up in committees. I can see that Mr Kerry appears to be a decent man, but what I am asking is: can he accomplish his goals?

[loseyourname]

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=273809&postcount=81

Right there. I got a little frustrated at being patronized by a forum full of people that don't answer questions, and I quickly apologized. What's worse for the forum? That, or harping on about someone mistakenly thinking you once worked at McDonald's for three pages.

[loseyourname]

By the way, while we're still on the subject of false assumptions, I do not consider myself right-wing. My positions on economics and social welfare are right-wing (and these are very important issues to me), but outside of that, I'm fairly liberal, especially on the environment and civil liberties. I didn't vote for Bush in the last election and I have no idea who I'm voting for in this one, though I am leaning Bushward.

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I disagree. It's a deroggatory label. So do I, but I'm letting it go. I recommend everyone else do the same.

[Elizabeth1405]

What's worse for the forum? That, or harping on about someone mistakenly thinking you once worked at McDonald's for three pages.

Yup, it's all my fault that you used foul language. You got me there. Actually, I trust the wonderful moderators of this forum will delete your post, as many of us find that kind of language offensive. Thank you!

[loseyourname]

It's deleted. I will apologize for a second time, despite the fact that you never even posted in that particular thread. I obviously had no intention of offending you.

[loseyourname]

Yup, it's all my fault that you used foul language. You got me there.

Wait! I know the answer to this one. Can you quote me on that? I never said that.

[russ_watters]

Once again, Russ, please quote me where I said that. I said they don't deserve to be screwed over--I did not say they they deserve handouts. Those two phrases do not mean the same thing. I am not required to respond to you about my beliefs. Here's the problem Elizabeth. You make statements that honestly do seem to say one thing, but you aren't explicit and you refuse to be explicit about what you mean. Maybe its unintentional and maybe not, but either way, it appears dishonest. If you do wish for honest debate, you can help avoid getting yourself upset about us misinterpreting you by being specific about what your opinion is. Make specific, positive statements of your opinion. Otherwise, further debate is utterly useless: instead of saying "I did not say that" when asked a question, answer the question. Insead of saying 'I don't believe this' and 'I don't believe that' tell us what you do believe.

At this point, whether we continue the debate and perhaps clear up misunderstandings about each other (and God forbid, maybe reach some common ground) is up to you.

[Evo]

Let's see if we can get this thread back to the original topic "Things Kerry will do", or I will close the thread.

[Artman]

Originally Posted by amp
1. Kerry will balance the budget.
2. Kerry will give the US a stronger and more improved military.
3. Kerry will bring back our allies.
4. Kerry will bring about almost universal healthcare.
5. Kerry will reform and revialize our public education.
6. Kerry will accomplish the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.
to be cont...

Artman, you want my beliefs? Here they are above, well-said and concisely put by amp. Good enough for you? Buh-bye.

Thank you.

Now don't get hot over this. These are not attacks on your opinion, these are serious questions from someone who wants the get at the facts.

Can either Elizabeth1405 or Amp or someone else give me some basis for these beliefs other than Mr. Kerry's word that he might accomplish some of these?

For instance, has he proposed in his platform a method for achieving items 1 and 2 together? The two are often mutually exclusive.

Items 3 & 5 he may be able to accomplish, but what are his proposed methods?

How does he intend to pay for Item 4?

Item 6 seems to me well within his capabilities. I also believe this to be important to him.

[loseyourname]

Is John Kerry making it up as he goes along? The presumptive Democratic nominee, who has been raging about the Bush economy for more than 15 months, was recently asked to tie his campaign proposals into a succinct and compelling agenda. "Succinct agenda," Mr. Kerry replied. "We're going to balance the budget. We're going to cut the deficit in half in four years. We're going to create 10 million jobs. And we're going to provide health care to all Americans? How's that?" Well, which is it going to be? Are you going to balance the budget? Or are you going to cut the deficit in half? The difference is only about $250 billion a year.

Full Article (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040424-101351-5228r.htm)

[russ_watters]

Evo - fair enough.

[switching gears]

Artman & loseyourname - money for proposed spending is always a toughie for both sides. Healthcare, defense, and balancing the budget require more income for the government or cuts in other places. When Kerry says things like the quote above and also says he'll "roll back" already in place cuts, what I'm hearing is that with him in office we'll have some major tax increases.

[loseyourname]

I'm reading over his site right now, trying to figure out exactly what his economic plan is, but it's still pretty vague. There are a couple of things that just don't make any sense, though.

- He says he'll bring jobs back to America by closing tax loopholes for overseas employees. But even that is done, overseas wages will still be so much lower that it will still be more profitable to ship unskilled jobs overseas.

- He says he will create jobs and encourage investment by lowering corporate taxes for 99% of all businesses, but this will not increase the deficit. In fact, his plan will take in an additional $12 billion each year. The only way to do this is to tax the hell out of the largest corporations, which are the ones investing the most money and creating the most jobs.

- He says he'll cut health-care premiums by $1000. What does this mean? $1000 per year per worker? There's another tax increase, but is this part of the increase for the top 1% of businesses, or the top 2% of households.

- Back to the cutting of business taxes. Does he realize that the owners of the more successful 99% of businesses for whom he is cutting taxes are often in the top 1% of income earners? Cutting their taxes in one place and raising them in another isn't going to do a whole lot of good. It certainly isn't going to create any new jobs.

- He'll create universal access to college by giving a tax credit of up to $4000 for 4 years. Why? The Hope credit already goes up to $6000 for 4 years. A student can make $1000 in a year working a minimum wage job for 4 hours a week. If anything, expand federal work study programs.

- He says he'll lower corporate taxes by 5%. First off, this is a bit misleading (or at least ambiguous), as he is lowering it from 35 to 33.25%, not to 30%. I'd still kind of like to know how lowering corporate taxes like this is going to generate an additional $12 billion of revenue, but he doesn't seem interested in explaining how he will achieve all of these things.

- One final thing he doesn't mention is that all of these proposals can only be achieved through legislation. If congress remains Republican, how the heck is he going to get any of this passed?

[amp]

Well Artman and LYN, he has given you and US an overview of what and how he intends to go about accomplishing those goals, I'd say thats sincere, just and fair. This is more than the head of the current admin was providing at the same relative point in his first run.

Kerry's record if undistinguished is moderately good and shows the he fought for many things we 'average joes' feel would benefit us.

Contrasted against the incumbent, you see someone out of touch with 'joe average' and the larger portion of the population.

Kerry knows this is the only planet we have to live on at present so he sees the crucial importance of ecological wisdom for the current generation and generations yet to come.

The incumbent, well its no secret.

[Artman]

Thank you Amp.

Kerry's record if undistinguished is moderately good and shows the he fought for many things we 'average joes' feel would benefit us.


This seems to be true.

This also seems to be true:

- One final thing he doesn't mention is that all of these proposals can only be achieved through legislation. If congress remains Republican, how the heck is he going to get any of this passed?

Thank you for the information on Kerry's platform loseyourname.

[amp]

This also seems to be true:
Quote:
Originally Posted by loseyourname
- One final thing he doesn't mention is that all of these proposals can only be achieved through legislation. If congress remains Republican, how the heck is he going to get any of this passed?

Thank you for the information on Kerry's platform loseyourname.

LYN, pardon me for not opting for pessimism which would increase the work in a already difficult task, finging and building a foundation from a base of common ground. The Rep's are desirous of many of the beneficial projections of the Kerry initiatives. As Obama stated better than I could, there is no liberal or conservative, we are Americans who stand/work/progress united in our efforts to strengthen and revitalize the spirit of America.

[loseyourname]

The whole point is that none of the parts of his platform I listed here would be of any benefit. No Republican or Democrat should vote for any of them.

[amp]

...none of the parts of his platform I listed here would be of any benefit. No Republican or Democrat should vote for any of them.

Really? Why are you so certain? I guess like the 'Shadow' you must "know what lurks in the hearts of men."

[nbo10]

The only thing we need to know about Kerry is that during his time in the senate he voted against every major weapon system that we currently use to defend your country.

Ohhh, but wait.... I think he now supports all the systems. Do you believe in his actions or what he says in hindsight???

The number one job the president is to protect and defend the US. President Bush has shown that he has the conviction to stand against what the mainstream media and left think is right. By liberating Iraq we ensure that the tyrannical government can not lanuch an attack on the US or any other country. We are also ensured that WMD will not be devolped in Iraq and passed on to terrorist organizations. The windfall of democracy in Iraq & Afganistan will be felt in all parts of the mideast and the world. The ramifications of which will be enjoyed by future generations.

JMD

[JohnDubYa]

LYN, pardon me for not opting for pessimism which would increase the work in a already difficult task, finging and building a foundation from a base of common ground. The Rep's are desirous of many of the beneficial projections of the Kerry initiatives. As Obama stated better than I could, there is no liberal or conservative, we are Americans who stand/work/progress united in our efforts to strengthen and revitalize the spirit of America.

Time to put the boots on as it is getting a little deep around here.

[Dissident Dan]

The only thing we need to know about Kerry is that during his time in the senate he voted against every major weapon system that we currently use to defend your country.


Do you get all your information from TV ads?

[amp]

I don't think so nbo10 . Kerry (IMHO) intends to cut the waste in the military and to produce systems that mesh and blend into a more robust military, unlike the way the public's investment has been abused by shall I say greed mongers.

This is hilarious: ...By liberating Iraq we ensure that the tyrannical government can not lanuch an attack on the US or any other country.

Iraq was less of a threat before the invasion than North Korea. Iraq could barely support itself.

[JohnDubYa]

Iraq could barely support itself.

So they had very few weapons, is that your assertion? Historically, nations that are nearly destitute are very dangerous. In fact, such seems to be the norm.